Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindcrime | Hacker News Reader

I had switched away from FF to use Chrome predominately a few years ago, for a mix of various reasons. Performance being a big one. But I've been thinking more about the whole browser monoculture issue, and the importance of Mozilla and Firefox for the Open Web in general lately, so about a week or two ago I started switching back to Firefox as my primary browser. So far, so good. Performance feels pretty snappy so far, and I haven't run across many rendering issues, and none that really matter.

All in all, I'd say that if you have been considering Firefox, now might be a good time to give it a shot.

This is all, BTW, in reference to the desktop version (Linux specifically) not mobile.

View on HN

> This is all, BTW, in reference to the desktop version (Linux specifically) not mobile.

Mobile is better, because you can install uBlock. As far as I'm aware Chrome mobile still doesn't allow addons.

As for FF on the main browser, they really shot themselves in the foot years ago and left a bad taste in any users' mouths. I see this same message in every HN FF update thread (since quantum). They really did fix most of the bugs and speed, but it is hard to build the brand back. The only performance/bug I sometimes get is if I'm doing a heavy research day and open a metric ton of tabs (>100) and things get pushed into swap and don't release, even after closing FF. But Chrome was always a memory hog as well so it isn't enough to cause me to switch over and this is a niche thing (and easy to resolve).

errrr... not sure I understand correctly what you mean with "bugs and speed", specifically "since quantum".

I remember that the day that Quantum released, I suddenly got DMs from my non-tech friends who announced that they had installed/updated FF, and were happy how incredibly fast it was. I remember that because those were people who would usually roll their eyes if I mentioned anything software related in a conversation.

> [since quantum] They really did fix most of the bugs and speed...

I mean that pre-quantum it was slow and buggy. Post quantum it is fast and not buggy.

Perhaps my experience or usage of the browser was different from most, but I would not characterize my experience with Firefox pre-Quantum as "slow and buggy". I rarely noticed bugs and it always seemed to be as fast as Chrome was. Granted, I did have ad-blockers installed and I never ran benchmarks but I never noticed much of a difference.

Right now I have 376 tabs open in Firefox, on Windows laptop with 8 GB RAM. They were 600, but I did a purge a few months ago. 0

0 performance problems.

Just my 2 cents.

Can I ask you why do you leave all those tabs opened all the time? When I get to 20-25 I go mad and start frantically close almost all of them. I really depend on Awesome Bar to reopen sites though (but I like it)

They are things I want to revisit and I found that putting in a "To Sort" bookmark folder doesn't cause me to revisit. I am forced to eventually revisit and decide if I still need it or not. But I don't go to 300 tabs, I usually purge around 100 or less.

Research, trains of thought, read later

We have very different experiences in that case.

Once I go past ~100 open tabs on Firefox, on a 16GB RAM Linux laptop, my whole system freezes. I experienced these issues as late as in June, so it doesn't appear to have been recently fixed either. Note that I do use uBlock Origin so it doesn't just buckle under from ads, but I also make heavy use of Container Tabs, which may also be a factor.

Luckily, the extension "Auto Tab Discard" solved these issues for me.

You can go to about:performance and see which tab is problematic.

Thanks for the tip! I currently don't have many tabs open, but was surprised to see every one of my work Office365 tabs (mail, calendar, etc.) at 100+ MB each...

> Luckily, the extension "Auto Tab Discard" solved these issues for me.

This looks like a useful extension to me (I'd even love if this was a native FF feature). But I'm noticing it has full access to web pages. Does anyone know how Richard Neomy deals with this data?

Perhaps the contents of the pages in each tab could account for such differences in resource usage? A tab count is a very very rough measure. A JavaScript heavy page can have a massive footprint compared to a simple content page.

I have some issues with the mobile FF with typing (filling form elements on some sites). I still use it for browsing as having the addons gives a superior experience. I'd be happy if I could switch 100%, but I have not been able to figure what is causing this issue. Does anyone else have issues with Firefox entering the words "twice" when they try to type?

I don't have this issue but on mobile I switched to the nightly. Maybe that will help?

I use FF and Chrome, but the sites I visit are distinctly split between these two browsers (i.e. I strictly browse some sites on one of these two browser).

First, I want FF to be around for a long time to make sure there's no browser monopoly by Chrome. That's the primary reason I use FF.

I also trust FF more regarding privacy. So I use FF to log in on sites like my banks, credit cards, and government sites (like IRS and social security). I even use FF to check my Gmail. I use Chrome to browse less trustworthy sites across the internet, and sites that I really don't mind Google tracking my visit such as HN, Reddit, etc. The only Google product that I use on Chrome is YouTube. :)

Thank you, FF engineering team for keeping alternative alive on the web.

Maybe FF team can answer why they keep pushing crap like Pocket down our throats.

I'm a long-time Firefox user. I often hear people with savage opinions about Pocket. Can you state what hardship this has caused you? Did it violate your privacy? Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? Is it helping to fund child slave labor?

The only time I am aware of Pocket is when someone online reports how this molehill is a mountain to them. I also wonder where they place their mouths while browsing that they experience it as being shoved down their throats.

Imagine how much time you spend on your chosen browser to configure it how you like it. How much extra work is it to set extensions.pocket.enabled to false in about:config if Pocket is causing so much pain?

> Can you state what hardship this has caused you?

It subjected me to a bunch of banal content on my homepage that I didn't want or like.

> Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space?

It occupied a second or two of my attention when opening a new tab. Sometimes I got suckered into clicking on an article, which I almost immediately regretted every time.

> this molehill is a mountain to them.

I clicked to disable it and moved on with my life. I find it unfortunate but not worth more than the two seconds of distraction it already took from me.

> It subjected me to a bunch of banal content on my homepage that I didn't want or like.

Three dot menu -> Remove Section. Ta-da.

Yeah, I said already in the post that I did this, thanks anyhow

I'm not so sure why you're so upset about something that can be removed with two clicks. If that's your only real complaint with a browser, I'd say that's a pretty successful browser.

You are using a browser for free that is decades worth of devtime and effort, gifted to you by its developers and you cry about a config change that takes 2 seconds?

That's why I use high-quality firefox forks like Waterfox, which keeps the most popular Firefox features and security while removing things like phoning home or Pocket.

Its existence signifies that something fundamentally is wrong with Firefox and where Mozilla spends its resources.

If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it? How come only popular things like advanced extension support gets axed? These are the questions I ask when I use Firefox. Why are they spending time and resources on horrific products like Pocket when they could be literally improving their browser. Why is it pushed so aggressively and shamelessly?

Pocket is the perfect representation of all the grievances against Firefox rolled into an annoying in-your-face product and so of course it’s going to be the punching bag.

> Its existence signifies that something fundamentally is wrong with Firefox and where Mozilla spends its resources.

Why? I don't understand this. Mozilla needs to make money somehow. Unfortunately we don't live in a post scarcity world where programmers just contribute to OSS because they enjoy it and want to make the world better. Currently they do it because of those things AND because they need an income. Unfortunately things still cost money. (I think this answers your last few questions as well too)

> If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it?

I think this is sampling and internal bias. Have you seen the numbers of clicks? I haven't. But I rather like pocket.

They are allowed to make good products too you know. If Pocket is the best they got then they deserve go to zero.

If they have a product so polarising then maybe it shouldn’t be bundled as bloat to the browser.

verroq -- can you tell me which browser you use that doesn't suffer from any feature you don't like? Or is it a philosophical problem where a non-profit adding a small feature to raise revenue means it should be abandoned and died, but if a for profit company building a browser can incorporate all manner of devious and privacy harming features but that is acceptable because you expect so little from for-profit companies?

Being a non-profit doesn’t give them a pass on making bad products. Being open source doesn’t give a free pass on bad products. If they choose a unsustainable business model, where making profit ruins their product, then they created this problem themselves.

I run Chromium, it probably spies on me, but it doesn’t do it in my face, and it doesn’t pretend otherwise.

When I run Firefox, they say they care, but they shamelessly bundle that crapware. Makes me wonder if another day after another Firefox update they’ll add Pocket 2.0 without me knowing.

It’s the same issue I have with Brave as well, I cannot stand the BAT integration.

Your arguments are so full of holes I don't even know where to start. Pocket is fully documented and very easy to turn off. That's all I'm going to reply to you on this. Good grief.

I guess the difference is you value things vastly differently. This feature, which doesn't spy on you and takes epsilon resources if not used and can be disabled with two clicks "ruins their product", makes firefox a "bad product", and this feature is "shameless crapware." But chrome spying on you apologetically is acceptable.

While Mozilla has to beg for scraps we're all being sold up the river.

How? Personally I'd rather be shown an ad (sponsored stories) than have my data taken.

I like Pocket. I think it's great and I enjoy the interesting articles it recommends to me. I never would have gone looking for something like it, so I'm glad Mozilla added it.

I have yet to find any site/service on the internet with more varied (in a good way) recommendations. Some of it is junk, but I find myself laughing at least once a week at some of the articles pocket recommends.

Today's highlights: 1. What did Jesus wear? 2. What happens to your body when you walk 10,000 steps every single day 3. A 16-million-year-old tree tells a deep story of the passage of time

My first reactions: I mean, what did Jesus wear? 16 million years seems way too long...

I would never have looked up any of these things, and the odds of me stumbling upon them on Reddit, Facebook, etc. feels extremely low. The sort of stuff Pocket recommends just feels so different to the things other sites recommend to me. I've been a long-time fan of Pocket (even before it was added to FF), so there is some bias, but every time I open a new tab in FF and navigate to some site, there's that split-second of loading where I glimpse these titles, and very often I find myself clicking the back button to do a double-take. Pocket is good. I like it. To each his own.

> If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it? Because I don't think it's quite unpopular. I'm a Pocket subscriber and use it very heavily, even before it joined Mozilla and got integrated into FF).

It provides some revenue stream into Mozilla and it's a genuinely useful service.

> How come only popular things like advanced extension support gets axed?

There was a very detailed blog post about it recently. It boils down the architecture being a roadblock and being very open to operational abuse in terms of security and privacy of the users.

Sometimes, the most elegant and useful code gets the axe because, it genuinely blocks something further down the road. It's painful but, it sometimes needs to happen like this. Firefox is a very old code base. It's every part has been changed over time but, these changes were always gradual and connected to previous iterations so, the evolution kinda had a forced path out from some states.

> Why are they spending time and resources on horrific products like Pocket when they could be literally improving their browser. Why is it pushed so aggressively and shamelessly?

You might be thinking some service/product to be horrific but, I personally like to be able to read some stuff distraction free and being able store its permanent copies with my annotations on it very convenient from a knowledge base perspective. Looks like I'm not the only one so, the service's still alive.

I just think it is very seedy to bundle it with the browser and it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Google bundles a complete platform and a lot of proprietary features for Google products with Chrome, most people don't bat an eye.

Opera bundles some features more than a browser (VPN, et al.) with the browser, similarly people don't get rubbed by it.

Mozilla puts a button which is just a scriptlet to the UI and people got tipped off.

It just sits there and can be turned off [1]. I've never experienced any aggressive marketing for Pocket by Firefox (in app or out of band). I only get a weekly articles digest which, I subscribed and, that's all.

I wish we were living in an era where free and high quality software just survive without any revenue stream and web is not a mess of standards, bombardment of adverts and analytics frameworks and other sinister stuff but, that ship has unfortunately sailed and, I personally still angry about it.

[1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/disable-or-re-enable-po...

> It provides some revenue stream into Mozilla and it's a genuinely useful service.

FF itself provides a massive revenue stream.

AFAIK that revenue stream is search provider agreements and it's no revenue stream. In current conjecture, it's Google giving them some money to keep Mozilla afloat so, they don't become a monopoly per se.

Please correct me, if I'm wrong.

How can you have a revenue stream from a search engine if you don't have a browser to view said stream? Therefore firefox is critical to that agreement. Google absolutely gives them cashola for being the default search engine. Most people never change that so it is about a 90% sure thing for google to make money from firefox users. The other things is they can point and say "see we have competition and we're friendly with them even!"

Pocket was extremely popular. The problem was that Pocket was a 3rd party extension that Mozilla, in a hurry to match the Instapaper like capabilities Chrome and Safari added, integrated into Firefox.

The deep integration of a 3rd party extension quite rightly did not sit well with many people.

However, since then, Mozilla has bought Pocket and there really is no reason to complain about Pocket integration anymore than complaining about Read It Later integration In Safari, or bookmarks.

There may be complaints about it from the perspective that I believe that Pocket is still closed source, which would be valid, but not Fromm browser users perspective.

Bookmark sync is end to end encrypted. Pocket isn't. It replaced a feature that was. Mozilla misrepresents it as more private than it is.[1]

Why isn't closed source a valid complaint from a user's perspective?

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/

Lacking end-to-end encryption is a valid complain, but note that encrypted bookmarks still exist in Firefox, and Firefox's capabilities are still better than Chrome's. For example Firefox's bookmarks can be tagged, and you can easily search them from the AwesomeBar.

Pocket does not replace bookmarks, and if you try using Pocket for bookmarking, you're going to have a terrible experience.

As a disclaimer, I am a Pocket user.

Pocket replaced Reading List. I only mentioned bookmarks because they said there was no reason to complain about Pocket any more than bookmarks.

Why would using Pocket for bookmarks be a terrible experience, out of curiosity? Pocket doesn't have folders but Firefox makes tagging bookmarks easier than using folders anyway.

Pocket misses important functionality, like the ability to edit the title of the links.

This is particularly annoying for PDFs, because it can't extract titles from PDFs. If you bookmark something like [1], Pocket's title will be "ifl2014_submission_13.pdf" instead of "Church Encoding of Data Types Considered Harmful for Implementations".

Also, up until a month or two ago, the interface was anti-web, as searching did not have a URL you could use, so you couldn't set Pocket with a custom search keyword, for doing quick searches.

The biggest reason to use bookmarks is the AwesomeBar. For the example above, if I start typing "Church Encoding", Firefox will also search in my bookmarks. That search bar being multi-functional is awesome, because I don't have to remember to search my bookmarks. If searching in your bookmarks doesn't happen often, then it's just cold storage. Plus it's always nice when it saves you a Google round-trip.

There's also the issue that in Pocket I end up saving trashy articles that I don't necessarily want to archive. Although it's nice to remember a read article and find it again in Pocket.

Anyway, I wish Pocket would evolve into a Pinboard replacement, but unless it provides the capability of editing titles, and possibly descriptions too, then it can't be a replacement.

[1] https://ifl2014.github.io/submissions/ifl2014_submission_13....

All this animosity is so weird to me because I like and use Pocket and I'm glad it's there and helps Mozilla.

I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of the Firefox browser experience (crappy sync-across-devices for one) but I'm a huge fan of Pocket. My favourite use is via a Kobo e-reader that can sync the articles for offline viewing. It's just a fairly painless experience on different devices to 'save to pocket' and be able to read a clean version elsewhere later.

What issues are you experiencing re: "crappy sync-across-devices"? Having a Firefox account makes all this seamless.

> If it is so unpopular, how come Firefox hasn’t axed it?

"I don't like it and some people I know don't like it" is not evidence for something being unpopular in general.

> How come only popular things like advanced extension support gets axed?

https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo...

Also if you don't like it, it's extremely easy to turn off.

Pocket's backend remains closed-source in spite of Mozilla claiming they'd open it, which spits in the face of the moral position they're supposed to hold. It's also set up so that by default it displays ads on the new tab page. While obviously I can disable this, the fact that I have to fight Firefox at all to make it not show me ads and not push me towards a proprietary service rather sacrifices their whole "fights for the user" position. Also on a pragmatic note, I go through enough profiles that disabling it is actually a reoccurring irritation.

> I often hear people with savage opinions about Pocket. Can you state what hardship this has caused you? Did it violate your privacy? Does it impose extra layers of clicking to get work done or occupy valuable screen space? Is it helping to fund child slave labor?

It does in fact impose extra clicks and occupy screen space. People are in fact allowed to care about ethical issues short of child slave labor.

> when someone online reports how this molehill is a mountain to them

I'm so sorry; I didn't realize that your priorities were the universal standard.

> I also wonder where they place their mouths while browsing that they experience it as being shoved down their throats.

And I wonder whether you're incapable of understanding a metaphor or simply revel in dismissing legitimate concerns.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120982 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120804

I actually find Pocket to be very useful as a cross-platform bookmarking app

Same with me. I jumped to Chrome as soon as it came out because FF was sluggish and pretty much impossible to use. Ironically Chrome was a memory hog although performance didn’t really suffer. When Quantum came out, I switched back to FF and never looked back. Nowadays FF is my primary browser and I use Safari as a secondary browser. Luckily I’ve never experienced the performance issues that come up every time that there is a thread about FF on HN (although I’m starting to suspect that my habit of keeping just a few tabs open might be the reason).

I’m similar to you, except I’m also using mobile Firefox, and I think the preview/beta Firefox on Android works great. Looking forward to this becoming the standard for everyone.

The only compatibility issues I run into with Firefox are with my company’s internal web apps. It really does feel like Chrome is the new IE6 in the enterprise world :(

Even Firefox for iOS (which must use Safari WebView) comes bundles with a decent content blocker. Recommended.

My favorite Firefox extension is tree style tabs. It displays your tabs as a vertical menu on the side rather than on a horizontal line at the top. I've been using this extension for years and I'm going to use it for the rest of my life. I highly recommend checking it out.

I agree, tree tabs is the best. How do people manage with out it?

By having 8 tabs.

I really liked Tree Style Tabs before the restrictions on extensions.

I do understand that they needed to discontinue them, because it was a roadblock for faster engine, but they felt less like a hack to provide that functionality.

It still works great, has any functionality been removed?

I think mostly that it is not part of the UI. Functionality wise I think it is ok.

Basically:

- the original tabs are still displayed (I know there was some way to tinker with FF files to have them hidden, but now I can't find where I've seen it) - when viewing bookmarks, the treestyle tab disappears (since it's using the same side bar), so then need to use F1 to get it back) - the old version also had an option where the side bar shrunk, and expanded when you hovered mouse, saving some space.

I installed Tree Style Tabs by reading recommendations about it. It's true, this extension is great!

You mean you're going to use it for as long as Mozilla allows it.

How does it compare to Mobile Safari ad blocker plug-ins like 1Blocker?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com